http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/l...cle_5863de2e-9829-11e7-8a7d-0bc4dedd080d.html
As an alumnus of UVA, I'm not sure what to say. At least they're not arguing for the taking down of the statue.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Protesters shroud Jefferson statue, decry UVa response to rallies
- Thread starter AoM
- Start date
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/l...cle_5863de2e-9829-11e7-8a7d-0bc4dedd080d.html
As an alumnus of UVA, I'm not sure what to say. At least they're not arguing for the taking down of the statue.
Skellig Gra
Member
Seems a bit of a mixed message but well within their rights to protest.
What's the mixed message?
Skellig Gra
Member
In 1776, abolitionist Thomas Day responding to the hypocrisy in the Declaration wrote, though the first draft stated " All free men are created equal":
If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves.
Just so we're clear that some of the people at the time noticed the incredible hypocrisy of the founding fathers.
If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves.
Just so we're clear that some of the people at the time noticed the incredible hypocrisy of the founding fathers.
Gentleman Jack
Member
The message is that our monuments were predominantly built to please white people and their perception of history. Minorities have no reason to bow to it. Nothing to mix here.
Skellig Gra
Member
I'm not proposing minorities "bow" to anything. I'm merely pointing out Jefferson is not on the same level as Confederate leaders. Many people will view this the wrong way and further increase the divide. While I think its worthwhile to note that Jefferson owned slaves to provide the proper historical context, I don't think its worthwhile to call him an emblem of white supremacy.
Gentleman Jack
Member
Minorities protesting monuments of slave owners and confederates do not "increase the divide."
I think the protesters are perfectly capable of measuring and adequately measuring the crimes of Jefferson against those of Lee and Davis, and there's nothing in the article in the form of statement that suggests otherwise.
ginger ninja
Banned
They need to censure the constitution next. That thing was totally written by a bunch of slavers and slave owners man.
Skellig Gra
Member
Jefferson is on Mt Rushmore. He is an icon of the country that is beloved by the vast majority of Americans so I disagree that lumping him in with Confederates will not "increase the divide". The protesters are well within their rights to do what they are doing but as I originally stated its a mixed message they are presenting. It feeds in to the narrative that people are trying to change history (not that I agree with that but its still a mindset).
Dude Abides
Banned
This is a very dumb post.
Gentleman Jack
Member
My point is that the divide has always been there, and people who appear to move away from the idea of presenting history as it actually was as opposed to how white people would rather remember it were never really allies, and it's not their fragility that is at the top of anybody's priority list regardless. Wanting to recontextualize our popular understanding of Jefferson (and every other Founding Father, let's be real here) is not the same as tearing down confederate monuments.
Hades Hotgun
Banned
Citations needed.
Jefferson was a devout white supremacist who didn't even free his own slaves/children.
Skellig Gra
Member
100% agree with what you are saying. We should be properly contextualizing history. At the same time we should also be properly prioritizing our battles here. With so much bad shit going on is taking Jefferson down a peg really an important battle right now?
"All men are created equal, except for the slave i get to keep raping"
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
OP was slightly inaccurate, but he did put a clause in the Dec of Independence denouncing slavery. It wasn't a week late, it was removed because everyone thought that the South wouldn't ratify the constitution with the clause in there.
Jefferson was against Slavery, but he didn't think freed slaves could live together with white people. That would obviously be a racist position to take today but it's way better than the leaders of the confederacy had 100 years later (and some people in the south have now).
All of this is from Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power by Jon Meacham.
Edit:
here you go
You're asking if acknowledging that the country was founded on white supremacy is an important battle while a white supremacist is in the White House and white supremacists march on the streets?
Skellig Gra
Member
It's like I said, whether he actually believed it is a whole other discussion. But, it's better that line is there than not or things would probably be even worse for black folks.
Not really, I'm saying Jefferson isn't high on the list of targets you should go after to fight white supremacy because there are 100's if not 1,000s of more egregious and high profile offenders that had no positive influence on the country like he did.
"It's the thought that counts" only works for birthday presents not folk's humanity
Hades Hotgun
Banned
Jefferson probably should have been the first target given his importance to the Confederacy.
Shake Appeal
Member
Jefferson at least wrung his hands over slavery in his day, calling it a blot and a depravity and (correctly) predicting that it risked destroying the country.
But yeah, he sucked. The sooner we get over Founding Father worship, the better. Far too much of America's understanding of itself has calcified into some wacky 18th century individualist agrarian sense of what freedom and purpose look like.
But yeah, he sucked. The sooner we get over Founding Father worship, the better. Far too much of America's understanding of itself has calcified into some wacky 18th century individualist agrarian sense of what freedom and purpose look like.
Gentleman Jack
Member
This specific assembly was a direct response to the white supremacist rally at the exact same site, and I can't think of anyone more qualified to start this conversation than current students at UVa. Asking them to wait (for what?) seems like a pointless wet blanket, the country is big enough for more than one fight on this front.
It's also the breeding ground of Breitbart. I know someone who was directly recruited to write for them that went to school there. And other prominent alt-righters hail from there too.
TheContact
Member
Doesn't say shit about women. It was a man's world, still arguably is
It's easy to look back on history and say "I would not have approved of slavery" but you didn't live in that time. Our greatest president owned slaves. It was just how things were. They weren't considered humans. It took a while for that belief to go away. It still exists in a lot of ways.
Skellig Gra
Member
I completely understand your position/skepticism. Personally,I believe having it there allows/ed it to be used in legal debates over equality/civil rights/etc. It's not some shining gift to minorities but its still a positive step that we'd be worse off without.
I'm not saying wait, like I said, they are well within their rights to do this and they are going about it the right way (peacefully). I'm thinking of the specific VA community there that has gone through a lot of shit recently not the country as a whole.
The number of people literally praising Jefferson for being a hypocrite is sort of amazing. That he said one thing and did another doesn't make him better than the other founding fathers, some of which were ACTUAL abolitionists and didn't keep and/or rape slaves.
Except for the half of the founding fathers that didn't own slaves, or the ones that did but then turned abolitionist and freed them, like Ben Franklin. This ridiculous idea that everyone at the time thought slavery was fine is just a poor reading of history. I literally posted that quote upthread to slow down this incredibly facile view of how our founding fathers viewed slavery. Saying that no one thought slaves should be free spits in the faces of the many abolitionists that fought slavery from the beginning so we can assuage our guilt at lionizing slavers and rapists.
Except for the half of the founding fathers that didn't own slaves, or the ones that did but then turned abolitionist and freed them, like Ben Franklin. This ridiculous idea that everyone at the time thought slavery was fine is just a poor reading of history. I literally posted that quote upthread to slow down this incredibly facile view of how our founding fathers viewed slavery. Saying that no one thought slaves should be free spits in the faces of the many abolitionists that fought slavery from the beginning so we can assuage our guilt at lionizing slavers and rapists.
ANd we can acknowledge it was a blight on our country's history that still causes issues to day.
"Shit happened" isn't good enough
Robert E. Lee also wrung his hands over slavery.
He wrote that the burden of slavery was worse for the white masters than for the black slaves, who could not survive as free men and women. It was a view shared by many Confederates.
Don't speak that whitewashing BS, John Adams never owned slaves and his wife Abigail Smith Adams was a vocal abolitionist. Several people in colonial/early America didn't like and/or opposed slavery. The slaveowners don't get a pass because "thats how things were", several people had the moral fiber to know it was wrong.
Hades Hotgun
Banned
I was being rhetorical. I am decently well read on the subject of the founding of the United States and the idea that Jefferson had a special draft of the Constitution struck me as particularly amusing.
But that isn't a slight inaccuracy by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it an unusual misconception. People defend TJ with make believe bullshit specifically because he engaged in a massive propaganda campaign to embellish his own significance in the founding, which continues to this day.
Jefferson was not actually against slavery. If he was, he would have freed his slaves. He wrote letters saying he didn't like it, but he also wrote letters saying that George Washington was a corrupt puppet and then wrote letters saying he never wrote those letters. The mother fucker was a lying shit heel and he should be known as such by all Americans.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Whether he believed that or not is kind of important. Maybe that's why people have been treated so poorly because he really didn't mean everyone which is sad.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Of the Great Seven Founding Fathers (Adams, Hamilton, Franklin, Jay, Madison, Jefferson, and Washington) Adams and Hamilton never owned slaves. Franklin and Jay both owned slaves at one point but became abolitionists later, Jay actually presiding over the abolition of slavery in New York while governor. Madison owned slaves for most of his life but "sort of" supported abolition later on (he was a proponent of colonization). Jefferson got slavery banned in the Northwest Territories and attempted to get other anti-slavery measures through but also profited directly from slavery for his entire life. Washington also opposed but profited from slavery, however he did emancipate all of his slaves in his will and refused to break up families.
So you have a 4/3 split between morally right Founding Fathers and hypocritical Founding Fathers.
perfectchaos007
Member
Is it time to vote on who we want on the Nickel yet? Gotta replace Jefferson like we did Jackson on the $20
Skellig Gra
Member
To an extent sure, Lincoln was integral in abolishing slavery but he wasn't necessarily anti-slavery. The action and is subsequent legal ramifications are more important than the underlying belief IMO.
I think you can honor historical figures while also criticising them. I think much of GAF would call FDR one of the greatest presidents in American history but there's also that huge fucking asterick of Japanese Internment which is the greatest civil rights violation of it's citizens committed by the US Government post-slavery.
gutter_trash
Banned
Adams >>>>> Jefferson
entremet
Member
Is this worship, though? The statue is more of the founder status of Jefferson of the school. The actual demands arent bad, tho, I remember a tour of Monticello being very honest about Jeffersons past, including his sex slavery. If Monticello, his home and big tourist attraction can do it, seems the university he founded could add a little plaque.
But I wouldnt remove the statue since he founded the school.
This is where I'm at. Jefferson is a far more complicated figure than Robert E Lee/Jefferson Davis because his actions have tangible, undeniable positive effects which can still be felt today. American society as a whole is largely willing to admit that Lee and other confederates are dirtbags not worthy of honor, but it will be a long time before equating Jefferson with them is acceptable, especially in this political climate. By doing this, they are playing right into Trump's hands, given that he suggested Washington would be the next statue to come down. Their demands are great and need to be enacted ASAP, but the dramatic theatricality of shrouding the statue will not do them any favors. I get that they're responding to the tiki torch march of the white supremacists, but this will come off to the general public as nearly as radical as the hate filled rally of last month.
must be two americas
Dyson Industries
Banned
This is a stupid post. I'm not calling you stupid, however. Just hoping that you do better next time.
LegendofJoe
Member
Thomas Jefferson is the wrong leader/symbol to go after with regards to combating systemic racism, especially at UVA. Stick with going after confederate monuments, there are too many to count and all of them need to be removed from public places.
entremet
Member
They just want an explanatory plaque, not a full removal.
I'm pretty sure Jefferson himself realized it as well, but did nothing.
That was my first thought: they're turning the right's satire into reality, which is never a good look. The white supremacist march deserves a reaction, but this seems misdirected.
Yeah. He was against slavery in the abstract, but his actions showed he was not going to give up his slaves. He understood it was wrong, but did it anyway.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked